The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-07-17

Representative Congress
stated. The fact that person at election
may vote for member of Congress would not makeit
election for Representative in Congress. Such
vote might be cast at any election, at a municipal
election at election for township trustees per-
haps election held for the purpose of voting for
company. And yet it must not make it election
for Representative in Congress and subject the officers
thereof the mediation of federal courts for any
neglect or omission that they might be guilty of.
sufficient answer to this argument is that
the indictment AYERS that the election for Con-
gresham in question was had and held pursuant
to law 1t substantially AYERS that the inspector
neglected and refused to comply with his duty
at that election at which Representative in Con-
gress was voted for
1t was further suggested that the certificates
and papers in question are to be considered in
law separate papers in respect to each officer
voted for. There is no foundation for this in
the statute 1t was conceded in argument, and
it may be inferred from the statute, that the
certificate is single paper containing tho result
OF the election, as to all the officers voted for
as well as the State of Indiana. That paper
might be mutilated in such form to destroy
its entire value for every legal purpose for which
1t was designed by law. 1t is none the less
paper relating to the election of Congress
man because it contains evidence to the votes
for State officers In sense it is the joint
property of the United States and the State
The national and State governments unite in
saying to the inspector, with whom it is de-
posted, to keep that paper himself and return it
to the board of canvassers, who are to estimate
the poll books and taly-lis and declare the re-
suit. The very object of both the federal and
the State statute was TO guard all the approaches
of bad men having in view to defeat the popular
will, as expressed at the polls The State
law provided special depositary for these
pers, and the United States, approving that
regulation, adopts him as a depositary we'll
for the United States as for the State. When
the inspector parted with that paper, surrender
ing it to tho custody of Perkins, his offense,
against the United States and under the
statutes cited, was complete and when
Perkins received those papers from the
inspector. as alleged. the offense of the alleged
conspirators N the one case was complete. and
the offense of the petitioner in the other case
WAS complete
That the Congress of the United States had
the constitutional power to enact the legislation
in question l entertain no doubt whatever. 1t
is no longer open question in the courts OF
the Union that Congress has full power,
under the constitution. to establish regulations
sufficient and ample to guard the purity of cleo
tions for United States officers. and as
means to that end it was competent for
Congress, by reference to and adoption OF
the regulation. prescribed by the State,
to make it an offense against the United States
for any officer at an election had for Congress
men to surrender to any one the custody of the
papers relating to such election after they had
been deposited with him under the law of the
State. 1t would be no answer by an inspector
under the charge of having violated his duty in
that respect to say that there was no actual mu-
tilation of the papers. go far they related to
the election of members of Congress.
To permit the paper which contains evidence of
that election 10 pass from MS custody into the
hands of unauthorized persons affords op
portunity to evil-disposed persons to defeat the
popular will at such elections: hence the neces-
sity both for the State and for the United States
to require of the inspector, is in fact done, to
keep safely the papers deposited with him, which
among things. constitutes credence of the vote
as to Congress, and thus not permit opportu
nifty to arise for their destruction, mutilation
alteration.
Without celebrating these questions any fur
Their, and postponng to a future time fuller
kDSvv x~rSo "a
opinion that the indictments in question charge
the petitioner with substantive crime Of
Tense against The United States in this: That
he aided, advised and procured the inspectors of
election to violate or neglect a duty imposed
upon them by law in reference to the certificate
and other papers deposited with him under the
requirements of the law Of Indiana relating to an
election for congressman.
How the Decision Was Received.
Now that the decision has been given, and is
in keeping with the wishes of the people, ire
spective Of politics. except those who bore an
immediate ouasi-relation with Coy and his
assistants it is proper to sketch some of the
speculation that preceded it. While they were
anxious for the jurisdiction of the United States
to be established in these cases, some lawyers
wavered in their opinion One lawyer said the
other day. II am afraid Justice Harlan will
decide in favor of the prisoner. To my
mind, it is a close question. but
there is no one more capable Of
euished judge" Others, DESTROYS of having the
accused tried in the United States Court, thought
the defendants counsel privately inclined
to give the doubts in favor of the government
He felt uncertain of his position that after the
argument of Friday he expected a decision deny
ing the petition. With the mass of people. how
ever, not learned in the law, opinions to the
result were formed according to feeling.
and " was con only Ia at f aars inter So
wished otherwise than to have the trial proceed
in the United States Court. It was felt that il
this jurisdiction failed there would DO but little
jury. Assuming that the men charged with the
conspiracy had enough evidence to acquit them,
it has been from the beginning the accepted
opinion that the facts pointing to their guilt
were sufficient at least to bring public condemna-
ton on them. It these facts the accused
did not want the public to know, hence they
made every effort to that end, and brought to bear
every influence they could to keep indictments
from being brought in the county Criminal
Court 1t is matter of current remark that
they succeeded in influencing portion OF the
county grand jury and it is charged prevented
indictments from being returned by federal
grand jury. When another federal jury found
the evidence sufficient to indict them the gang
began to quail. Up to that time Coy, Sullivan.
Bernhamer and the rest were deient, but since |
then they have been submissive and refrained |
rs much possible from talking about the |
/
gent in devlsing means to prevent publicity of |
III the details Of the crime with which they are |
charged. When the indictments were once So |
cured they had but one resource with which to |
iefeat trial, and that has failed them. Nothing |
8 left to them but a wearsome trial in which all /
me facts OF the conspiracy will be unfolded.
Public opinion at no time has been based upon
anything else. since tbs affair first became noto-
ious, but that nearly all of the accused had a
rand in altering the tally sheets. This has been
trenethened by tho developments of the past
everal months, so far as the facts tina: have
cached the public were concerned. Hence,
whom the question of the United States Courts
urisdietion hung in the balance, the popular in
crest. while not excited, was intense. Had the
ecison been otherwise there is telling to
What limit popular indignation, at a pos
IDLE escape from trial for the
used. would have reached. When the
Weight of Justice Harlan's decision was learned |
" the people, the expressions the streets. in |
fices. hotels and stores were those Of relief
Ivoryb body had something to say in regard to it
was made certain that the accused would be
Rad Nobody. not even those who are known |